Target pavement cyclists, say MPs

[totallyfixed]

Blimey, hot topic this one. Was just off to bed then like so many of us it seems, I just had to have a peekat what the latest was on CC.
I lived in Germany for 10 years, no conflict at all between all forms of transport. There was one overriding reason for this, virtually everyone owned and rode a bike at some time during the week be it for leisure or commuting.
Sharing the pavement has never been a problem over there. I know it's been said and done to death soooooo many times but we have to keep on saying it - education, understanding and bums on saddles.
Oops, just previewed what I've said, bit heavy
'Night

 

[brokenbetty]

There are longer routes, but all they do is add quiet miles to the unavoidable busy roads.

So ride the road, push the bike or find an alternative means of transport. You don't HAVE to ride on the pavement, you CHOOSE to ride on it.

You're working under the assumption that a bicycle is purely a road vehicle, and unless someone is capable of riding or willing to ride in busy traffic then they shouldn't be on a bike.

There are roads, and there are pavements. In the absence of a third option, the bike is a road vehicle rather than a pavement vehicle. The road is designed for wheeled traffic moving at speed, the pavement is designed for foot traffic. (You can tell by the kerbs.) A bike is a bad fit for the pavement, especially when there are people trying to walk on it.

Unless someone is capable of riding or willing to ride in busy traffic then they shouldn't be on a bike on a busy road. That doesn't mean they can't be on a bike on a quieter one.

Also look at my last response to linford. That's an example of a problem that you're saying you can't see, and in that situation I'd reverse the question and ask you what the problem is with the solution described.

The problem is you were trying to ride a bike on an unsuitable route given your constraints. I don't think the fact that you never had a complaint proves that everyone was happy to have you there.

Why should a cyclist have to contend with congested or fast traffic to get somewhere?

Assuming they don't have any other route available, they have to contend with the traffic because the traffic is there. Why should a pedestrian have to contend with cyclists on the pavement?

You're not reading the post. I've described the situation to you -having unavoidable busy roads between home and a quieter route- and you're claiming that it's selfish. That doesn't make sense.

I am reading the post. I've said to choose a route intending to ride 2/3 of a mile of it on the pavement is selfish. It doesn't make sense to you because you won't accept that cyclists on the pavement are unpleasant for other users.

Here You're talking about the idiots. I'm talking about responsible cycling. Yup, inconsiderate cyclists are selfish. So you accept that considerate cyclists are not. That being the case, it shouldn't matter to you where they cycle.

A considerate pavement cyclist beside a busy road - your justification for being on the pavement - would cycle at walking pace. So they might as well push - it's just as fast, more controllable at that speed, and less intimidating for pedestrians. Frankly, it's just plain courtesy.

You're talking about inconsiderate cyclists again. If you're following that thread, you'll be for banning pedestrians from pavements because some wear ipods or are texting and stumble into you.

I'm talking about my experience of cyclists on the pavement. The paragons you think are the norm are strangely absent from my area of the world. This is possibly because anyone who is truly that considerate would get off and push as a matter of course.

Weirdly enough, I object more to being ridden down by a few kg of fast moving metal than a bump from a pedestrian who tripped over.

I've never done that. Not on this thread, nor anywhere else on this forum. If you disagree, please quote the relevant parts.

You've made a distinction between "idiots" who are banned and "considerate" cyclists who are welcome on the pavement but given no practical way of how this would be achieved or indeed defined. It's carte blanche until you clarify how it would actually work.

Again, I have NEVER seen a considerate pavement cyclist.

 

[summerdays]

Unless someone is capable of riding or willing to ride in busy traffic then they shouldn't be on a bike on a busy road. That doesn't mean they can't be on a bike on a quieter one.

There are problems with avoiding busy roads in large urban cities - there are usually large arterial routes coming out of the centre that inevitably you will need to cross at some point, some of them have very little pedestrian traffic on them.

A considerate pavement cyclist beside a busy road - your justification for being on the pavement - would cycle at walking pace. So they might as well push - it's just as fast, more controllable at that speed, and less intimidating for pedestrians. Frankly, it's just plain courtesy.

I'm talking about my experience of cyclists on the pavement. The paragons you think are the norm are strangely absent from my area of the world. This is possibly because anyone who is truly that considerate would get off and push as a matter of course.

Again, I have NEVER seen a considerate pavement cyclist.

I do see considerate pavement cyclists, and in one of my routes I have to share a path/lane with them. I do get off in the narrow path (between buildings - you can touch both sides of the path at the same time) if there are pedestrians though I actually am narrower and less likely to bump into them when on the bike.

Then I cycle slowly behind them in the lane below 4mph usually. Many of the parents start shouting for their children to get out of my way - and I usually reply - don't worry I'm fine. I quite enjoy cycling at their pace and recognise that we share that space - cars occasionally use it too. It is still easier to cycle in the lane as I usually have a pannier which can be heavy, and I find the bike is more stable with me on it than pushing it.

I think it would be nice to cycle occasionally on the pavements if done sensibly in a European sort of way - but I'm happy enough if chatting with a friend on the way home to cycle slowly on the road beside her. If a car comes along I can always pull over. Sometimes I do walk on the pavement beside her too - depends on how heavy the load is.

I did see a weird one the other day... in a posher bit of town I was on the road and met someone on the pavement who smiled - middle aged wearing cyclists looking like a proper touring type cyclist rather than a chav. I couldn't understand what he was doing on the path as he looked confident and there wasn't a single car on the road at all.

 

[jimboalee]

I cycle 14 miles home in an evening, almost all on the road. In the last 1/2 mile there is a double traffic light junction. I need to turn right onto the Solihull bypass and then right again. The problem is that the traffic on the bypass often tries to race out of the two lanes of the 1st junction. i.e. if I am the last one of a few turning right at the 1st set of lights, I now potentially have someone racing off the 1st set of lights, trying to squeeze in. It is not a situation I have any control of as I am stationary waiting to turn right, I need an alternative. There is usually 1 accident a month there. Given I feel terribly exposed I tend to go 10m on the pavement at around 4mph according to my cycle computer and give way to the traffic.

The issue on that junction is the exposed right turn.

Do you mean 'Maid's Cross'? Hampton Lane and Marsh Lane.

I live 300 yds from that junction.

When I get the BSA 20 out to visit Morrisons, I ride on the pavement.

I go round from Hampton Lane, across Yew Tree, across the by-pass, down the sidewalk crossing Beechnut and School and onto the Warwick Rd past Solihull School. Then I cross Warwick Rd at the T Lights right in front of Morrisons.

The traffic there is aweful at 3:30 till about 5:00 every weekday evening. I usualy get to the Warwick Road before the cars waiting in Hampton Lane to get onto the by-pass.

 

[jimboalee]

Do you mean 'Maid's Cross'? Hampton Lane and Marsh Lane.

I live 300 yds from that junction.

When I get the BSA 20 out to visit Morrisons, I ride on the pavement.

I go round from Hampton Lane, across Yew Tree, across the by-pass, down the sidewalk crossing Beechnut and School and onto the Warwick Rd past Solihull School. Then I cross Warwick Rd at the T Lights right in front of Morrisons.

The traffic there is aweful at 3:30 till about 5:00 every weekday evening. I usualy get to the Warwick Road before the cars waiting in Hampton Lane to get onto the by-pass.

When my Son and I ride to Knowle, we ride on the sidewalk, down Marsh Lane to the Warwick Road. across the special bike crossing opposite the Park and then ride the Old Warwick Road to the footbridge over the M42.

Then we ride to Knowle along the sidewalk past Copt Heath Golf Club.

Peds move aside. They know the M42 junction is a nightmare for cyclists.

PS BikeHike, Bikely et al WILL NOT use the footbridge. There are many other 'dual use' paths they don't know about, so they're crap.

 

[jonredhornet]

"Occam's Razor" That's one excellent user name.

Using occam's razor in this situation, I'd reduce the situation to the following.

Make the Police uphold the law proportionately, in other words target those vehicles which cause the most suffering in our society. If a cyclist makes an error, usually it is only themselves who come off worse. If a heavier vehicle makes an error, the consequences are proportionally worse.

I'm all in favour of making the effort to uphold the traffic laws and reduce bad cycling and bad road craft by all road users.

 

[rh100]

When my Son and I ride to Knowle, we ride on the sidewalk, down Marsh Lane to the Warwick Road. across the special bike crossing opposite the Park and then ride the Old Warwick Road to the footbridge over the M42.

Then we ride to Knowle along the sidewalk past Copt Heath Golf Club.

Peds move aside. They know the M42 junction is a nightmare for cyclists.

PS BikeHike, Bikely et al WILL NOT use the footbridge. There are many other 'dual use' paths they don't know about, so they're crap.

I know where you mean, took me a while to find that bridge first time I used it. There is a cycle path on both sides on the way into Knowle, but I did notice a bit of a weird, if not dangerous part on the first RAB, it joins the pavement then dips back onto the road right into a bus stop if I remember correctly.

I've come from Morrisons a couple of times now, turn right at the light's then left, then over the bypass and onto YewTree/Damson Parkway - it's not an easy one is it, too many people racing off the lights - there's no way I would go along that bypass.

 

[jimboalee]

the pavement is designed for foot traffic. (You can tell by the kerbs.)

Now hold on.

The 'new' way of designing pavements is to accommodate invalid scooters.

This has made it much easier for me to cycle to Morrisons.

 

[brokenbetty]

I didn't say that anyone has to ride on the pavement.

And I've given you several examples of where there is no quiet alternative. Living in a big city, I could give you a pretty comprehensive list.

If there is no quiet alternative and you refuse to take the busy road and you refuse to push your bike, you will have to accept that taking that particular route by bike is not an option for you.

And there's the assumption that I've mentioned. Stop seeing it like that and you might become a bit enlightened.

My "assumption" is that bikes are not welcome in the area reserved for pedestrians. You assert that they are. I give your assertion no more validity than you give my "assumption"

There are plenty of pavements, and the majority of main road pavements are like this, where there's more than enough room for considerate cyclists to mix with considerate pedestrians. Reinforced by the fact that LAs have taken to painting white lines down the middle of them.

The white line makes all the difference. It says to pedestrians: "be alert, there might be bikes around. The LA has decided they are ok on this pavement. If you don't agree, take it up with the LA not the cyclist"

Without the white line, the cyclist is saying "I've decided I am ok on this pavement. If you don't agree, take it up with me"

The second is aggressive and selfish. If you don't like the law then change it, don't just ignore it. It's not a pick-n-mix!

Please read what I'm writing.

I read it. I don't agree with it. That doesn't mean I'm not listening or that I don't understand. I understand what you say but I think you are wrong.

There is no quieter alternative.

Then it's not a suitable route for that cyclist

And again, you're focussing on idiot cyclists. Get over that and you see things differently.

Well, yes, if I assume we are talking about imaginary cyclists instead of the real ones I experience every day, I guess I would see things differently.

Pedestrians report again and again that cyclists on the pavement intimidate them. That's the fact that started this thread. This is the actual experience of actual pedestrians encountering actual cyclists.

Well no, they wouldn't would they? It depends on what else is on the pavement. They'd ride at an appropriate speed. Plus, rolling 500 yards downhill at walking pace is far easier than having to walk a bike the same distance.

You know, that sounds a lot like the argument that drivers shouldn't be subjected to speed limits because left to their own devices they will always choose the appropriate speed for the conditions.

The vast majority of inconsiderate driving does not result in an accident. This leads the perpetrators to believe that they are good drivers and that the cyclists who complain are just whinging.

I don't see why you think inconsiderate cyclists are any more aware of their problem than inconsiderate drivers.

Cyclists are not a higher form of life blessed with moral certitude and subtle perception. They are people on bikes, and will make the same errors of judgement as people do the rest of the time.

You'll always get idiots. To allow them to spoil it for everyone is defeatest.

To ignore the problem because it isn't how you want the world to work is naive. Giving catre blanche to ride on any pavement without working out first how you will make sure pedestrians do not feel intimidated, unsafe and marginalised is both unfair and counterproductive.

Pedestrians are telling you that today, right now, they DO feel pavement cycling is a problem. If you want the right to ride on pavements you need to sort that out.

then you either live in a very antisocial area, or you don't get out much.

LOL - so in this thread I have been accused of living in a leafy surburb and an antisocial area, of being a super-confident cyclist who doesn't appreciate the problems and of not getting out much! Confused much on the pro-pavement side?

For what it's worth, I live in London zone 3 and commute to work by bike every day.

I suspect the reason I see more antisocial cycling than you is because I pay a lot of attention to how pedestrians react to cyclists.

Right. We clearly aren't getting anywhere here and I've no doubt it's very dull for anyone who is still reading. I'm going to leave it here. I think you've made all your points and they don't convince me. Feel free to have the last word.

Liz

 

[rh100]

So ride the road, push the bike or find an alternative means of transport. You don't HAVE to ride on the pavement, you CHOOSE to ride on it.



There are roads, and there are pavements. In the absence of a third option, the bike is a road vehicle rather than a pavement vehicle. The road is designed for wheeled traffic moving at speed, the pavement is designed for foot traffic. (You can tell by the kerbs.) A bike is a bad fit for the pavement, especially when there are people trying to walk on it.

Unless someone is capable of riding or willing to ride in busy traffic then they shouldn't be on a bike on a busy road. That doesn't mean they can't be on a bike on a quieter one.



The problem is you were trying to ride a bike on an unsuitable route given your constraints. I don't think the fact that you never had a complaint proves that everyone was happy to have you there.



Assuming they don't have any other route available, they have to contend with the traffic because the traffic is there. Why should a pedestrian have to contend with cyclists on the pavement?



I am reading the post. I've said to choose a route intending to ride 2/3 of a mile of it on the pavement is selfish. It doesn't make sense to you because you won't accept that cyclists on the pavement are unpleasant for other users.



A considerate pavement cyclist beside a busy road - your justification for being on the pavement - would cycle at walking pace. So they might as well push - it's just as fast, more controllable at that speed, and less intimidating for pedestrians. Frankly, it's just plain courtesy.



I'm talking about my experience of cyclists on the pavement. The paragons you think are the norm are strangely absent from my area of the world. This is possibly because anyone who is truly that considerate would get off and push as a matter of course.

Weirdly enough, I object more to being ridden down by a few kg of fast moving metal than a bump from a pedestrian who tripped over.



You've made a distinction between "idiots" who are banned and "considerate" cyclists who are welcome on the pavement but given no practical way of how this would be achieved or indeed defined. It's carte blanche until you clarify how it would actually work.

Again, I have NEVER seen a considerate pavement cyclist.

If pavements are for foot traffic only, as you seem to be implying, and that cycles and peds are not suited to being on the same path, then why are so many pavements converted to cycle paths if it's so dangerous. There are a few around here that are not even segregated, not that the painted line makes any difference mind. So, the pavements have been converted to a shared cycle path, simply with the addition of a couple of signs and the odd painted line. So if that is all that is required, then any path (within reason) can be safely used by cycles also, surely. Apart from the signage - what is the difference?

I've seen lot's of considerate pavement cyclists, aswell as inconsiderate one's - I've also seen both types on the road - location makes no difference IMO.

 

[Dan B]

There are roads, and there are pavements. In the absence of a third option, the bike is a road vehicle rather than a pavement vehicle. The road is designed for wheeled traffic moving at speed, the pavement is designed for foot traffic.

And which do you think the more important part of this distinction: the wheels, or the speed? In your answer you may want to consider pushchairs, invalid carriages, and 10k runners in training

 

[very-near]

Sorry, I thought I'd made myself clear, especially as others understand what I'm saying. Which is not that every route should be available to every cyclist.




No, there are two. And the other has no quiet roads at all. There are longer routes, but all they do is add quiet miles to the unavoidable busy roads.

Please read my linked post again. I've given several examples. You're working under the assumption that a bicycle is purely a road vehicle, and unless someone is capable of riding or willing to ride in busy traffic then they shouldn't be on a bike.

Also look at my last response to linford. That's an example of a problem that you're saying you can't see, and in that situation I'd reverse the question and ask you what the problem is with the solution described.



Why should a cyclist have to contend with congested or fast traffic to get somewhere?

You're not reading the post. I've described the situation to you -having unavoidable busy roads between home and a quieter route- and you're claiming that it's selfish. That doesn't make sense.



Again, read the posts. Mine and others'. Sometimes there's no alternative.

Here
You're talking about the idiots. I'm talking about responsible cycling.


Yup, inconsiderate cyclists are selfish. So you accept that considerate cyclists are not. That being the case, it shouldn't matter to you where they cycle.


You're talking about inconsiderate cyclists again. If you're following that thread, you'll be for banning pedestrians from pavements because some wear ipods or are texting and stumble into you.

I do.

I do.

I've never done that. Not on this thread, nor anywhere else on this forum. If you disagree, please quote the relevant parts.

This is the way it is, it is no good bleating about it not being fair. You have to live within the limitations which come from buying a house and working in the 2nd biggest city in the UK.

Comparitively, there are many places we will not hack the horses even though we have a legal right to do so. They are not legally allowed on the pavement, and the traffic is too heavy to risk it. We find another way, or box them and take them to a bridleway to ride out from (this is the primary reason I got the 4x4 in the first place )

Stay off the Pavement when cycling if you don't havea legal right to do this MrP. You are a danger to others with your selfish behaviour.

 

[very-near]

If there is no quiet alternative and you refuse to take the busy road and you refuse to push your bike, you will have to accept that taking that particular route by bike is not an option for you.



My "assumption" is that bikes are not welcome in the area reserved for pedestrians. You assert that they are. I give your assertion no more validity than you give my "assumption"



The white line makes all the difference. It says to pedestrians: "be alert, there might be bikes around. The LA has decided they are ok on this pavement. If you don't agree, take it up with the LA not the cyclist"

Without the white line, the cyclist is saying "I've decided I am ok on this pavement. If you don't agree, take it up with me"

The second is aggressive and selfish. If you don't like the law then change it, don't just ignore it. It's not a pick-n-mix!



I read it. I don't agree with it. That doesn't mean I'm not listening or that I don't understand. I understand what you say but I think you are wrong.



Then it's not a suitable route for that cyclist



Well, yes, if I assume we are talking about imaginary cyclists instead of the real ones I experience every day, I guess I would see things differently.

Pedestrians report again and again that cyclists on the pavement intimidate them. That's the fact that started this thread. This is the actual experience of actual pedestrians encountering actual cyclists.



You know, that sounds a lot like the argument that drivers shouldn't be subjected to speed limits because left to their own devices they will always choose the appropriate speed for the conditions.

The vast majority of inconsiderate driving does not result in an accident. This leads the perpetrators to believe that they are good drivers and that the cyclists who complain are just whinging.

I don't see why you think inconsiderate cyclists are any more aware of their problem than inconsiderate drivers.

Cyclists are not a higher form of life blessed with moral certitude and subtle perception. They are people on bikes, and will make the same errors of judgement as people do the rest of the time.



To ignore the problem because it isn't how you want the world to work is naive. Giving catre blanche to ride on any pavement without working out first how you will make sure pedestrians do not feel intimidated, unsafe and marginalised is both unfair and counterproductive.

Pedestrians are telling you that today, right now, they DO feel pavement cycling is a problem. If you want the right to ride on pavements you need to sort that out.



LOL - so in this thread I have been accused of living in a leafy surburb and an antisocial area, of being a super-confident cyclist who doesn't appreciate the problems and of not getting out much! Confused much on the pro-pavement side?

For what it's worth, I live in London zone 3 and commute to work by bike every day.

I suspect the reason I see more antisocial cycling than you is because I pay a lot of attention to how pedestrians react to cyclists.

Right. We clearly aren't getting anywhere here and I've no doubt it's very dull for anyone who is still reading. I'm going to leave it here. I think you've made all your points and they don't convince me. Feel free to have the last word.

Liz

Quality post Liz

All I can say to MrP is

Now push your cycle when you don't have a legal right to ride it you law breaker you . You are a danger to others MrP and have demonstrated that the only laws you want to see enforced are the ones which suit you.

This sanctimonious attitude you have shown for so long has come back to bite you in the arse

 

[jimboalee]

Quality post Liz

All I can say to MrP is

Now push your cycle when you don't have a legal right to ride it you law breaker you . You are a danger to others MrP and have demonstrated that the only laws you want to see enforced are the ones which suit you.

This sanctimonious attitude you have shown for so long has come back to bite you in the arse

And also MrP, I've seen you wheelstanding across Victoria Square and outside the Rep', so STOP IT and get that thing down the Queensway tunnel at 40 mph with the motorists like the rest of us.

 

[very-near]

That's a very defeatest attitude.

It is a realists attitude. Of all the things which has scared our pony on the road was a bobble hatted roadie by the racecourse who got too close and didn't slow down.

It's most certainly not how it has to be. And things are changing.

I'm curious as to how once a blue sign at the start of a wide path declaring it shared use is posted it's ok and socially possible for cyclists and pedestrians to share that space, but the day before it's somehow more dangerous and antisocial.

These points have been covered already in Liz's post if you bothered to read it properly, you wouldn't ask me the same question.

Unfortunately for you horseriding is a pretty minority activity. It's not a realistic and workable practical alternative form of transport. And as such, there's less of a drive to get horse tracks in urban areas.

Over 4 milliion people take part in horse riding in the UK each year. The equestrian sector is worth £4.3 billion in the UK alone. Just because you don't see many horse riders in the centre of Brum doesn't mean that this is a minority activity.


It's a shame you posted that bit. Your other comments on here have been more helpful and realistic.

Do you mean giving you carte blanch to terrorise peds on pavements which you have no legal right of way when you cycle commute ?